Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 159
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When I said you assertion was false, I was talking about your claim that it was a "180" as if it were a sudden change in what I've been saying. It is not. I've been dropping hints for quite a while, but my thoughts on this issue had not really gelled. It takes quite a while and a lot of effort to free your mind from biases that were instilled over years of biased thinking. But the time has come. I am now explicitly stating that it is flawed because of selection bias. And why am I saying that? Because that's what I've concluded after years of studying the evidence. As I'm sure you have noticed, I've been "cutting my teeth" debunking every variety of biases that pervert the judgment of believers. Reviewing your claims played no small role. (Thanks!) I've spent a lot of time on this project. It was TWO YEARS AGO, after studying how Rich Deem literally disintegrated his mind with his blatantly biased rationalizations, that I said my NEXT PROJECT was to apply the same rigorous honesty to my own work. It should be no surprise that it taken this long to get that project off the ground since I spent fifteen years convincing myself, largely through selection bias, that the Bible Wheel and gematria were evidence of God. But I have enough evidence now, and am ready to affirm that cognitive bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and gematria. If you want to challenge that conclusion, great! All you need to do is challenge the evidence that supports it. The fact that I happened to start this thread after you presented your argument about the "negative traits of God" is utterly irrelevant. That argument had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. This should be obvious since I have explained why that argument not only fails, but is blatantly absurd. All you are doing is inventing a NEW GOD that is different than the "god" of the Bible. I've explained this in detail twice, and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You have not even responded to my point. It seems like you are somehow blinded. So here is what you need to do ...

    RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.


    Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it. They are "right" only in the sense that a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Most of the mocking fools didn't have a clue what they were talking about and never even tried to formulate an argument. And the few who did try were easy to refute. That's why I could legitimately "run around the internet claiming nobody could refute it." But as the old saying goes - if you want a job done right, do it yourself! So that's what I've done. It will be VERY interesting to see if you can formulate any argument against my assertion that selection bias played a sufficiently significant role in the Bible Wheel to obviate any claim of divine design.

    I am really glad you are pursuing this.

    Shine on!



    Richard
    If the Biblewheel ia flawed, then it becomes a Big Lie, and who is the Big Liar?.....

    God Bless.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    If the Biblewheel ia flawed, then it becomes a Big Lie, and who is the Big Liar?.....

    God Bless.
    A person who falls into delusion is not necessarily a deliberate liar. I spoke what I understood to be true to the best of my ability when I was a Christian, and I continue to do so now. You are simply being a rude and abusive, trying to take advantage of my honesty to insult me because you don't have the intellectual ability to refute anything with logic and facts.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Not from this world...from the other side
    Posts
    3,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    A person who falls into delusion is not necessarily a deliberate liar. I spoke what I understood to be true to the best of my ability when I was a Christian, and I continue to do so now. You are simply being a rude and abusive, trying to take advantage of my honesty to insult me because you don't have the intellectual ability to refute anything with logic and facts.
    I am not being rude or abusive but advising you not to call people liars when they seems delusional to you or whose ideas and concepts are disagreeable to you. Same as you , we are not deliberate liars but we spoke of what we understood to be true in the best of our ability.

    God Bless.
    Ask and You shall receive,
    Seek and You shall find,
    Knock and the door will be open unto You.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by CWH View Post
    I am not being rude or abusive but advising you not to call people liars when they seems delusional to you or whose ideas and concepts are disagreeable to you. Same as you , we are not deliberate liars but we spoke of what we understood to be true in the best of our ability.

    God Bless.
    That's good advice Cheow. If you ever see me making such an error, please point it out and be sure to supply evidence supporting your assertion. And remember, there is nothing wrong with stating that someone is deluded or lying if it is demonstrably true.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.

    Nonsense. If I told you I was infallible and then you presented evidence that I was NOT infallible, does that mean I do not exist??? Of course not. It would only demonstrate that I am fallible. Same thing with the biblical God. If there is mathematical design in the bible, which you GRANTED there is, then THAT is evidence for the EXISTENCE of the divine being that is proclaimed throughout the bible from A to Z and who is said to have interacted with the most unique people in the holy universe (the wicked awesome Israelites) AND is said to have divinely inspired the Hebrew prophets. Now IF there are biblical examples of "errors", "contradictions" or "negative" traits associated with this divine being, then all you would have demonstrated is the FALLIBILITY of this being (of course, all of those problems you have with the bible could easily be explained as fallible MEN, not a fallible God, tampering with the original autographs, but let that go). The mathematical design in the bible = EVIDENCE for the EXISTENCE of the divine being who inspired the Hebrew prophets WHEREAS the problems you raise would only demonstrate his FALLIBILITY. Again, if I told you I was infallible and said there was a horse in your living room. It wouldn't disprove my EXISTENCE if there was no horse in your living room. It would only demonstrate I am not infallible. If I said it is impossible for me to fit in a size 10 shoe while wearing a size 10 shoe, it would only demonstrate I am not infallible.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it.

    I never said they had a valid reason for rejecting it. I said IF the bible wheel is a massive fail, then that means all the Christians who said your discovery was bunk were right REGARDLESS of WHY they thought it was bunk. And from what I've seen, the very argument you're making now against the bible wheel is the very same argument most Christians have been using against it (namely, that it involves selection bias or cherry picking). Not only that, you yourself are ON THE RECORD in stating they are WRONG in claiming the bible wheel involves cherry picking (statements you've made on other forums). Do you deny this???



    BINI

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288

    What is the alternative to divine authorship of the Bible?

    Richard,

    This is my initial post, so I hope I have jumped through your register hoops propherly. Obviously, this thread is what I observe to be the core of your arguments in favour of your years of developing your Bible Wheel, followed by your subsequent denial of its truth and validity.

    My preliminary question is simply, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible divinely inspiring the writing of its Scriptures, what is the alternative?

    Do you believe the Jewish adepts had mathematical superiority of knowledge, which they ingeniously embedded in a historical myth, engineered to launch a multi-millenial attempt to rule the world?

    If not Jewish, do you think it was a broader kabal of world intellects who engineered the Bible to hide their desire for world dominance?

    Even if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think would be the purpose of the Zionist movement, creating a new parallel between the Church and Israel, rather than a more biblical one Lord, one faith, one baptism of the Bible? As an aside, what is your view of the Talmudic and Kaballistic Judaism?

    If you have a knowledgeable answer for the above, for what reason would they have expanded the Jewish people of God to the world Jewish-Gentile universal church? Keep in mind the early Jewish persecution of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

    How do you think this would interface with the many trinitarian religious systems prior to the writing of the New Testament?

    Do you agree with Alexander Hislop and many others that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a modern expression of the ancient Mystery Religions, and is in fact the world's largest false Christian cult?

    Do you have any views on the existence of Masonry, Illuminati, or Jesuits?

    Do you not find it interesting that the teachings of Jesus denounce the teachings and actions of these public or secret organisations?

    Well, this is probably requiring an encyclopedic response, but I put a few questions out there to see what your blogsite has in response to my contemporary concerns.

    Thanks for an opportunity to open this discussion to these areas of my concern

    dp

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.
    Nonsense. If I told you I was infallible and then you presented evidence that I was NOT infallible, does that mean I do not exist??? Of course not. It would only demonstrate that I am fallible. Same thing with the biblical God.
    You still do not understand. The point is this: If you wrote a book in which you described a person who had self-contradictory properties, such as being simultaneously male and female, then I would know that you could not be the person described in the book. Simple as that. It doesn't mean that you don't exist. It means you could not be the person described in the book because THAT person does not exist. Nothing could be simpler.

    The same goes for the god of the Bible. If that god is described as having self-contradictory properties, then THAT GOD cannot exist. This does not imply the non-existence of some OTHER GOD that may have inspired the self-contradictory description in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    If there is mathematical design in the bible, which you GRANTED there is,
    I have not granted that there is a general mathematical design (like the holographs) throughout the Bible. On the contrary, the holographs appear in a very limited number of verses. Yes, they are intriguing, but they are not a property of the bible as a whole. They certainly do not "prove" that the self-contradictory "god" described in its pages is true, since that would imply a contradiction, and contradictions cannot be true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    then THAT is evidence for the EXISTENCE of the divine being that is proclaimed throughout the bible from A to Z
    Not if that being is described as possessing self-contradictory properties. That would be like "proving" that square circles exist. It would be a meaningless proposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Now IF there are biblical examples of "errors", "contradictions" or "negative" traits associated with this divine being, then all you would have demonstrated is the FALLIBILITY of this being
    Not true. Logic declares that no being with self-contradictory properties can exist. As I've explained many times, its fine if you want to say that there is some OTHER GOD that does not have the contradictory properties of the biblegod, but you can't say that the biblegod actually exists if it has incoherent properties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    (of course, all of those problems you have with the bible could easily be explained as fallible MEN, not a fallible God, tampering with the original autographs, but let that go).
    Not true. If you go that route, then all statements in the Bible are suspect. You would have no rational principle with which to discern between the "true God" and the god described in the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    The mathematical design in the bible = EVIDENCE for the EXISTENCE of the divine being who inspired the Hebrew prophets WHEREAS the problems you raise would only demonstrate his FALLIBILITY.
    Not true. Amongst those "inspirations" are commands of genocide, the institution of slavery and sexism, and many errors in logic and fact. There cannot be any "evidence" proving that false = true.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Again, if I told you I was infallible and said there was a horse in your living room. It wouldn't disprove my EXISTENCE if there was no horse in your living room. It would only demonstrate I am not infallible. If I said it is impossible for me to fit in a size 10 shoe while wearing a size 10 shoe, it would only demonstrate I am not infallible.
    You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse. To repeat: You are proposing an OTHER GOD that has different properties than the god of the Bible which we know cannot exist if it has self-contradictory properties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    I never said they had a valid reason for rejecting it. I said IF the bible wheel is a massive fail, then that means all the Christians who said your discovery was bunk were right REGARDLESS of WHY they thought it was bunk.
    So what? I would agree with them!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    And from what I've seen, the very argument you're making now against the bible wheel is the very same argument most Christians have been using against it (namely, that it involves selection bias or cherry picking). Not only that, you yourself are ON THE RECORD in stating they are WRONG in claiming the bible wheel involves cherry picking (statements you've made on other forums). Do you deny this???
    Give me an actual quote and we can talk.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard,

    This is my initial post, so I hope I have jumped through your register hoops propherly. Obviously, this thread is what I observe to be the core of your arguments in favour of your years of developing your Bible Wheel, followed by your subsequent denial of its truth and validity.
    Hey there dpenn,

    Welcome to our forum!



    I really appreciate your thoughtful questions. They are exactly what I am hoping for, to help me test my conclusions.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    My preliminary question is simply, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible divinely inspiring the writing of its Scriptures, what is the alternative?
    Before asking for an alternative explanation, we must determine if there are any patterns that need explaining. There were three independent topics that I claimed gave evidence for the divine design of the Bible:

    1) The Bible Wheel

    2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation

    3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria)

    The first thing to note is that selection bias played a central role in the development of the "evidence" for each of those topics:

    1) The Bible Wheel: I scanned every book looking for "connections" with the corresponding Hebrew letter and the other two books on the spoke. I wrote a 412 page book reporting on all the "hits" I found. I did not report, or even deal with, most of the data. This is a classic case of selection bias, and it brings into question any conclusions based on it.

    2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation: Again, I compared every chapter of Isaiah with the corresponding book of the Bible. And again, I reported only the "hits." It is extremely important to note that other people did the same thing, using a different order of the books (e.g. Hebrew Tanakh) and became utterly convinced that their pattern was evidence of "divine design."

    3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria): The whole topic of gematria is based fundamentally on selection bias. For any given number, there is usually a large random collection of words that have that value. One must "select" which ones to focus on to form patterns. I tried to avoid this problem by looking for self-reflective, self-coherent, highly integrated patterns which I called "holographs." Those are the ONLY aspect of numerology that I would even consider as possibly valid. The irony, of course, is that numerology is the most lucid example of selection bias. I would say about 99.9% of all numerology I've ever seen was totally delusional bullshit.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Do you believe the Jewish adepts had mathematical superiority of knowledge, which they ingeniously embedded in a historical myth, engineered to launch a multi-millenial attempt to rule the world?
    No. Nothing like that has ever crossed my mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    If not Jewish, do you think it was a broader kabal of world intellects who engineered the Bible to hide their desire for world dominance?
    Nope. Conspiracy theories are almost always blatantly delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Even if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think would be the purpose of the Zionist movement, creating a new parallel between the Church and Israel, rather than a more biblical one Lord, one faith, one baptism of the Bible? As an aside, what is your view of the Talmudic and Kaballistic Judaism?
    When I was a Christian, I thought the doctrines of the "Christian Zionists" were entirely unbilblical.

    As for the Talmud and Kabbalah, they are interesting sources of information. The topic is too deep to go into right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    If you have a knowledgeable answer for the above, for what reason would they have expanded the Jewish people of God to the world Jewish-Gentile universal church? Keep in mind the early Jewish persecution of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
    That's too far off-topic for this thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    How do you think this would interface with the many trinitarian religious systems prior to the writing of the New Testament?
    I see no connection between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the prior "trinitarian" religions. It seems to me that the motivation for the Trinity came entirely from Scripture and the worship of Christ as God in the early church.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Do you agree with Alexander Hislop and many others that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a modern expression of the ancient Mystery Religions, and is in fact the world's largest false Christian cult?
    Hislop wrote crap. I agree with this snippet from the wiki that I posted in this thread a few years ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    The Two Babylons is an anti-Catholic religious pamphlet produced initially by the Scottish theologian and Presbyterian Alexander Hislop in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon, the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy.[1][2] Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005</ref> It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3][4]

    Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist protestant Christians.[1]
    The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord[5] and other conspiracy theorists.[6]

    Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document, and that this book follows the line of thought of works like: Martin Luther - On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Titus Oates - An Exact Discovery of the Mystery of Iniquity as it is now in Practice amongst the Jesuits (1679), Conyers Middleton - Letter from Rome (1729).[7]
    The fact that Protestants claimed the Pope Antichrist (in the Westminster Confusion of the Faith) is an excellent example of the profound incoherence of the Bible and the religion as a whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Do you have any views on the existence of Masonry, Illuminati, or Jesuits?
    They are of no consequence, except that they serve as great fodder for delusional conspiracy theories.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Well, this is probably requiring an encyclopedic response, but I put a few questions out there to see what your blogsite has in response to my contemporary concerns.
    Yes, a proper response would require a book. But we can pursue the points of interest one at a time.

    Again, I really appreciate your questions and hope the conversation continues.

    So what do you think about the Bible Wheel, Isiaiah-Bible Correlation, and Holographs? Do you think they are "evidence" of divine design? Do you have different opinions for each? I would be interested in your opinion.

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there dpenn,

    Before asking for an alternative explanation, we must determine if there are any patterns that need explaining. There were three independent topics that I claimed gave evidence for the divine design of the Bible:

    1) The Bible Wheel

    2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation

    3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria)

    Richard
    Once again, this is my first time responding by quotes, so I hope I have done it correctly.

    1) The Bible Wheel.

    When I first browsed your book to get an overall understanding of where you were going with it, I was fascinated by the layering of repeated 22's, (kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's). And even though you showed many overlapping themes on the threads, I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew. But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels, so that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, matched, Haggai, Zecharia, Malachi, the prophets of the restoration period. A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2. Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2. And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans. Having said this, the numbered groupings of 5,12,5 seemed ordered, especially as they overlay the design of the Menorah.

    2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.

    3. Biblical Holographs.

    My general thought about Biblical Enigma Machines, is that they seem to go just too far beyond what Jesus actually taught. His message was simple, yet profoundly wise. And when He did hint at a deeper truth that we should search out, it never suggested that we become masters of prime numbers, or magic squares, or magic squares of primes, or deeper hidden gnostic Gematria knowledge contained in the creation of the Hebrew letters. Obviously, numbers play a key and central part of the biblical message, but they don't become the driving force of interpretation. Even the famous, "here is the mind that has wisdom, count the number of the beast" doesn't appear to be some deep kaballistic encrypted code.

    Having said that, I must admit that I was quite startled at the precision of much of the Gematria Holographs. I must have lived quite a sheltered life, since I was not aware of most of this. I have come to realise the significant interplay with the Hebrew and Greek language and number systems, but I had no idea that there was such a profound overlap between the two systems (letter and number).

    ***

    As an afterthought, when I first became a Christian, one of the biggest hurdles for me to get over was the suspicion that the Bible was a deeply intelligent engineered book to manage the working class by a ruling elite, much like the exoteric-esoteric divide. But somehow, the love and grace of God won my heart over to believe on Jesus Christ for my salvation. I think it is possible that if I was exposed to Talmudic Gematria and Kaballism, I very well might never have come to see Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour (but who knows, God is Sovereign, and not many wise are called, i.e. some are).

    I am aware of many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible, but many of them have plausible answers and many others have been resolved over time. So I trust that the difficulties are in the process of being resolved, and God has His reasons for leaving us partially in the dark (thus the parables, etc).

    ***

    One final point, conspiracy theory MAY BE one of the most anti-intellectual accusations to make to write off many intelligent inquiries into the concealed actions of many secret societies. Why are they secret? And why do they take blood curdling oaths to assure their secrecy?

    Jesus did all things publicly and spoke truthfully for all to see and hear. I don't know what truly caused you to stumble at that stone, but my hope and prayer, is that, given time you might reconsider His reality.

    In Him,

    dp

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Once again, this is my first time responding by quotes, so I hope I have done it correctly.
    Looks like it worked just fine.

    You brought some very interesting points. I'm at work right now. I'll answer in a few hours after I get home.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •